AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Mahesh Grover, J.—By this common order, I am disposing of Cr.M.Nos.M-13935 and M-13962 of 2010. In both these petitions, prayer has been made that F.I.R. No.202 dated 14.11.2009 registered at Police Station Phillaur be quashed, as the parties have effected a compromise.
In the cross-version of F.I.R. No.202 dated 14.11.2009 registered u/s 376 I.P.C. at Police Station Phillaur, it has been alleged by Kiran Kumari daughter of Sudagar Ram, that she was subjected to rape by Kuldeep Kumar son of Mohni who entered her room forcibly at night along with his co-accused namely Hari Kishan son of Resham and Balbir alias Bira. The other accused persons pinned the prosecutrix down, while Kuldeep Kumar subjected her to forcible violation of her person.
In F.I.R. No.202 dated 14.11.2009 registered under Sections 307, 324, 452, 427, 148, 149 and 120-B at Police Station, Phillaur, it has been alleged by the complainant that while they were sleeping in their house, Aaarju Powar armed with a Kirpan, two sons of Saudagar Ram and two unknown boys without turban armed with Datar and Hardeep Kaur wife of Saudagar Ram entered the room and gave a Kirpan blow on the chest of Kuldeep Kumar which hit him on his left side. Arun Powar gave a Kirpan blow to Kuldeep Kumar which hit him on his head and the unknown boys gave Datar blows to Kuldeep Kumar. Hardeep Kaur is stated to have thrown a brick which did not hit anyone, but hit the glass of the window pane. Upon raising an alarm by Kiran Kumar, the injured, the accused persons are stated to have run away.
It has been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners that allegations in both the versions are false and there was no violence and neither was there any rape and even if the allegations in F.I.R. No.202 dated 14.11.2009 are seen, it is apparent that no rape was committed and only force was exercised.
On due consideration of the matter, I am of the opinion that the prayer that has been made by the petitioners, invites appreciation of evidence by this Court which is not the intended scope of the exercise of powers u/s 482 Cr.P.C. Whether the prosecutrix was subjected to rape or whether there was only the use of force shorter than the actual offence of rape, is a question to be determined on the basis of evidence. Therefore, this Court, at this stage cannot evaluate the contention which has been raised before it. In any eventuality, the observations made the Full Bench of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others State of Punjab and another 2007(3) R.C.R. (Cri) 1052 upon which reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioners are not attracted to the facts of this case. The Full Bench had observed as follows :-
The power u/s 482 of the Cr.P.C. is to be exercised Ex-Debitia Justitia to prevent an abuse of the process of the Court. There can neither be an exhaustive list nor the defined para-metres to enable a High Court to invoke or exercise its inherent powers. It will always depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The power u/s 482 of the Cr.P.C. has no limits. However, the High Court will exercise it sparingly and with utmost care and caution. The exercise of power has to be with circumspection and restraint. The Court is a vital and an extraordinary effective instrument to maintain and control social order. The courts play role of paramount importance in achieving peace, harmony and ever-lasting congeniality in society. Resolution of a dispute by way of a compromise between two warring groups, therefore, should attract the immediate and prompt attention of a Court which should endeavour to give full effect to the same unless such compromise is abhorrent to lawful composition of the society or would promote savagery.
In the very same judgment, the observations of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Mrs. Shakuntala Sawhney Vs. Mrs. Kaushalya Sawhney and Others, were also noticed and the same may be quoted here below :
The finest hour of justice arrives propitiously when parties, despite falling apart, bury the hatchet and weave a sense of fellowship of reunion.
The Full Bench while examining the power of the High Court u/s 482 Cr.P.C., has certainly observed that the power to quash the F.I.R. and the consequential proceedings is of wide amplitude, provided that noticing the facts before it, the exercise of such a power thwarts the abuse of process of law which is the intended purpose of securing the ends of justice, but at the same time, it has also to be kept in mind that the exercise of such a power may not result in an affront to public outrage and public morality and the public order which actually is intended to be secured, may not be defeated that the finest hour of justice legitimizing a compromise and putting an end to litigation may not itself become a slur in the name of justice.
It is imperative for the Court to see what is the nature of the offence alleged and also to evaluate the diabolism of its execution and then make a sound appraisal as to whether the quashing of such an F.I.R. is in the interest of justice or not, or whether the quashing of such an F.I.R. would be abhorrent. It is for this reason that the Full Bench while acknowledging the power of the High Court u/s 482 Cr.P.C. to be extraordinary effective instrument to maintain and control socio order, concluded with a word of caution "that the compromise should not be abhorrent to law and composition of the society or that it should not be a compromise that would promote savagery."
Offences such as Sections 376, 377 I.P.C. are a few examples which fall within this category and therefore, the Court is of the considered opinion that the accused persons should be left to earn their acquittal, but should not be permitted to go scot free by raising a bogey of compromise.
Since both the FIRs and the sequence of events being inter-related and inter-linked, it would be unwise to quash the one and leave the other untouched.
For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in both these petitions and I decline to exercise my power u/s 482 Cr.P.C.
Both the petitions are dismissed.